Yeah, this incident with crazy ass Holmes is a great example. I don't think that guns are made of compressed eagle tears and little american flag pins. It kind of goes along with the belief that inanimate objects are just that.

Yeah, this incident with crazy ass Holmes is a great example. I don't think that guns are made of compressed eagle tears and little american flag pins. It kind of goes along with the belief that inanimate objects are just that.

Surely we can discuss the value of widespread ownership of certain types of inanimate objects to society?

Dimensio:Cletus C.: A "real man" would stand up to the NRA and the rest of the country's gun nuts and say the United States doesn't need handguns. That we don't need automatic or semiautomatic weapons. That these are instruments of death for humans, and lttle else.

Automatic firearms are regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and are not readily available to civilians. The National Rifle Association does not advocate repeal of that Act.

Both handguns and semi-automatic rifles are used for hunting, for recreational target shooting and for personal defense.

Your statements suggest a fundamental lack of understanding of firearms regulation and use in the United States of America.

A real man would run for public office on that platform, appealing directly to the common sense of voters, rather than cowering from the fear of special interest money.

Declaring your position to be "common sense" is inherently an appeal to the "poisoning the well" fallacy.

You just said open carry would be a significant correlative factor, and now you're saying unrestricted conceal carry wouldn't be? That's the whole point - 'concealed carry' isn't even a thing in that jurisdiction, it's just carrying. Were 'more carrying = more shooting', the greater ease of carrying would equate to a greater ease of shooting. Also known as a higher homicide rate.

Philip Francis Queeg:I am unaware of those statistics being available, but I'd be very interested in seeing them if they were.

Which is a far cry from "to deny that shootings would happen is not realistic". I would also be interested in seeing the numbers, but I think you'd find that expanding allowable carry has little to do with the homicide rate. It would certainly be trumped by other factors like relation to the drug trade or other illegal activity, but even with those weeded out simply letting people have guns doesn't change the basic mindset of people such that they're more willing to commit initial crime.

They may be more willing to ramp it up to lethal force if they have guns, but that has to be weighed against the negative impact of your target likely also having a gun. You may be willing to punch some douchebag in a bar, but if he pulls a knife you're likely to back down. If you and him are both armed, you may not even be willing to punch him.

evilmrsock:HotWingConspiracy: sprawl15: That he was wearing body armor doesn't discount this brave senator's argument. In fact, it strengthens it. If people are going to wear body armor, then the citizenry needs more firepower to counter. Anti-materiel rifles or smaller grade explosives are exactly what's needed to take down an assailant like this, yet Cinemark refuses to allow them into the theater. What is this, Communist China?

I'm lobbying for open carry of suicide vests.

[i13.photobucket.com image 300x232]Well said soldier and personally I like your spunk, but you coulda asked for some heavy ordinance while you were at it! GIVE US MORE TANKS!

Cletus C.:Dimensio: Cletus C.: A "real man" would stand up to the NRA and the rest of the country's gun nuts and say the United States doesn't need handguns. That we don't need automatic or semiautomatic weapons. That these are instruments of death for humans, and lttle else.

Automatic firearms are regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and are not readily available to civilians. The National Rifle Association does not advocate repeal of that Act.

Both handguns and semi-automatic rifles are used for hunting, for recreational target shooting and for personal defense.

Your statements suggest a fundamental lack of understanding of firearms regulation and use in the United States of America.

A real man would run for public office on that platform, appealing directly to the common sense of voters, rather than cowering from the fear of special interest money.

Declaring your position to be "common sense" is inherently an appeal to the "poisoning the well" fallacy.

OK, how about 2012 sense vs. 1791 sense?

Until you educate yourself regarding firearm usage and existing regulation, you cannot construct a reasoned argument on the subject.

Heraclitus:I have been listening to internet Tough Guys tell me how they would have stopped the massacre with just one shot, for three days.Whatever helps you sleep at night guys.

This is literally the price we pay for having a country with an armed citizenry.

/ I blame President Obama for not being Liberal enough.

Agree with the first part, I doubt any armed citizen in there would have been very affective, too much confusion and mayhem in the dark. Probably what have shot the wrong person.

But I think it's really more the price we pay for the the Second Amendment or rather Freedom in general. You have to accept that there are going to be crazies out there. We have options:1. Spend more research dollars on mental health needs and R&D.2. Look for weaknesses in the gun laws that can be exploited.3. Kill all of the smart nerds that can't get dates (I keed) My point is you can't predict when someone is going to go off their nut and act out.

If we freak out and try to outlaw gun ownership then we are giving up our rights for security against a threat we fear.The human mind is weird, complicated, fragile and dangerous, with a flp side to accomplish great things.,,,but I digress.

sprawl15:MusicMakeMyHeadPound: Now, when you say "exclusively", what does that mean to you?

He means that despite the seller's motivation not being the death of human beings and the buyer's motivation not being the death of human beings, the gun itself has some purpose external to itself, its manufacturer, or its end user that is inherently evil and bloodthirsty.

All I could think was that staple of really bad fantasy novels: the weapon that won't work unless you feed it blood (or souls).

Meh. The internet was invented to ensure a nuclear retaliation. We've found fun things to do with this grim military invention too.

Or not. They were discussing the details of the case, so perhaps they were looking at the interview.

Here is what we do know.

Ray Kelly has a lot to lose if he is wrong.The NY Police Commissioner is a much more credible source on this issue than many other people. Connections and professional credibility included.This isn't a problem of an unnamed witness, ala 2003. This is much different.

sprawl15:You just said open carry would be a significant correlative factor, and now you're saying unrestricted conceal carry wouldn't be? That's the whole point - 'concealed carry' isn't even a thing in that jurisdiction, it's just carrying. Were 'more carrying = more shooting', the greater ease of carrying would equate to a greater ease of shooting. Also known as a higher homicide rate.

No, greater legal ease of carrying doe not necessarily equate to more carrying. I would strongly suspect that there is a far higher percentage of people carrying guns in Chicago than there is in Vermont regardless of the legal restrictions. I probably was not clear in my earlier post that I was referring to increase carrying of any type, regardless of legal restrictions. That was an error on my part, I should have been clearer in response.

paygun:Philip Francis Queeg: Surely we can discuss the value of widespread ownership of certain types of inanimate objects to society?

We already have, I thought. Self defense is a valid use. Be aware that coming up with an argument against self defense is going to be really difficult.

You keep wanting to have it both ways. You want credit for the positives of self defense, but when it comes to gun crimes, then it is merely an inanimate object that has nothing to do with the incident.

Dimensio:SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Dimensio: Cletus C.: A "real man" would stand up to the NRA and the rest of the country's gun nuts and say the United States doesn't need handguns. That we don't need automatic or semiautomatic weapons. That these are instruments of death for humans, and lttle else.

Automatic firearms are regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and are not readily available to civilians. The National Rifle Association does not advocate repeal of that Act.

Both handguns and semi-automatic rifles are used for hunting, for recreational target shooting and for personal defense.

Your statements suggest a fundamental lack of understanding of firearms regulation and use in the United States of America.

Wow, you sure did a great job nailing him on about 5% of his argument whilst doing nothing to address the substance of it.

The "substance" of his argument was founded upon incorrect premises. His argument was based upon factually incorrect claims regarding the purpose of various classes of firearms. Consequently, the "substance" of his argument lacks merit.

Me: " ... we don't need automatic or semiautomatic weapons. That these are instruments of death for humans, and lttle else.

Factual claims there, Biff.

We have automatic firearms, or Class C weapons, in this country, some legally in the hands of non-law enforcement/military.

"Little else" was in reference to the small minority of hunters who use handguns or semiautomatic rifles. They do not NEED such weapons to hunt.

Self defense? Against other people with guns, I assume. Recreational target shooting? You can use your bb gun for that.

Human-killing tools is what we're talking about. Intellectual honesty would be appreciated.

Philip Francis Queeg:You keep wanting to have it both ways. You want credit for the positives of self defense, but when it comes to gun crimes, then it is merely an inanimate object that has nothing to do with the incident.

I already said that this incident with Holmes is the downside. I'm not trying to build a case for magical solutions to difficult problems so it's a lot easier for me.

Cletus C.:Dimensio: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Dimensio: Cletus C.: A "real man" would stand up to the NRA and the rest of the country's gun nuts and say the United States doesn't need handguns. That we don't need automatic or semiautomatic weapons. That these are instruments of death for humans, and lttle else.

Automatic firearms are regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and are not readily available to civilians. The National Rifle Association does not advocate repeal of that Act.

Both handguns and semi-automatic rifles are used for hunting, for recreational target shooting and for personal defense.

Your statements suggest a fundamental lack of understanding of firearms regulation and use in the United States of America.

Wow, you sure did a great job nailing him on about 5% of his argument whilst doing nothing to address the substance of it.

The "substance" of his argument was founded upon incorrect premises. His argument was based upon factually incorrect claims regarding the purpose of various classes of firearms. Consequently, the "substance" of his argument lacks merit.

Me: " ... we don't need automatic or semiautomatic weapons. That these are instruments of death for humans, and lttle else.

Factual claims there, Biff.

We have automatic firearms, or Class C weapons, in this country, some legally in the hands of non-law enforcement/military.

"Little else" was in reference to the small minority of hunters who use handguns or semiautomatic rifles. They do not NEED such weapons to hunt.

Please demonstrate that the subset of hunters who use "handguns or semiautomatic rifles" are a "small minority".

Self defense? Against other people with guns, I assume.

Your assumption is incorrect: defense against attackers armed with firearms is a valid purpose of a firearm, but not all attackers possess firearms.

Recreational target shooting? You can use your bb gun for that.

That I "can" do such does not validate your previous false claims, nor does it justify your advocacy of total civilian disarmament -- which is itself Unconstitutional.

Human-killing tools is what we're talking about. Intellectual honesty would be appreciated.

Then you must also apply hammers to your reasoning, as they are "tools" that have demonstrably been utilized to kill humans.

The best part about citizen gun ownership IMHO as that armed citizens are the last bastion of protection of a sovereign nation. That also leads (well sorta) into the concept of the biggest bomb being the "peace keeper", hence the B52 nickname. Retaliation is formidable and gives the enemy pause.Wonder what the world would be like if we got away from that mentality? No arms race.Ack, just pondering outloud-ish.

The majority of gun laws disagree. Would you say that laws that make it harder to carry (like CCW permits, even the entire concept of licensing) do nothing to prevent gun possession?

Philip Francis Queeg:I probably was not clear in my earlier post that I was referring to increase carrying of any type, regardless of legal restrictions.

This would mean that the legal restrictions are irrelevant. If you need a special 'carry license' or not, people who want to carry will carry. The primary difference is if they'll conceal it or not - few would open carry where open carrying is illegal. But that again belies your point that greater legal ease of carrying doesn't equate to more carrying - if open carry is illegal, there would be less carrying.

MusicMakeMyHeadPound:All I could think was that staple of really bad fantasy novels: the weapon that won't work unless you feed it blood (or souls).

Sure, you can use DOOMTHRUST, the GENITAL MUTILATOR to slice meat off a roast, but it's ONLY PURPOSE is to kill people.

Weaver95:what_now: When Ronald Regan was shot he was surrounded by some of the best trained marksmen in the history of the world.

The Secret Service did NOT shoot back, because they did not think they had a clear enough target and they were in a crowd. Hinkley was pushed to the ground by some guy with Reagan.

Now, tell me more about how some dude in a crowded theater munching on popcorn is a better shot than the USSS.

well you see...REAL MEN, like this sterling example of Republican manhood - REAL men like him...THEY can outshoot even train secret service agents. they can also out swim SEALS and out track US army rangers! because....yeah! because they vote REPUBLICAN and...stuff! yeah!

A tiny capsule of CS gas will make you clamp your eyes shut, cough, spit, and hork uncontrollably, and that small amount won't even be visible. Ask anyone who's been in Army training about the tear gas tent.

The bomb that the shooter tossed made the room foggy with the gas. Don't give me that crap you're spreading.

A real man would have built up an immunity. (I've heard tell that some of the guys who oversee cs training can tough through it).

You kill yourself with those, for the most part. I can get away from your second-hand smoke and decline your offer to super-size my meal. When you decide to shoot me while I'm enjoying a movie I most likely don't have time to do anything, other than die.

Yes, guns also are popular for killing yourself, but that's another discussion.

Cletus C.:You kill yourself with those, for the most part. I can get away from your second-hand smoke and decline your offer to super-size my meal. When you decide to shoot me while I'm enjoying a movie I most likely don't have time to do anything, other than die.

Chances of this happening to youVs.Heart Disease.

We're collectively retarded as a society. We would be sorting out peoples misconceptions on their diet if we were handling news in a logical fashion.

Where do you get this idea that all gun owners have some kind of mentally ill hive mind? It's a really bizarre prejudice that to me seems like you'd notice about yourself. Do you have these kinds of thoughts about other groups of people?

paygun:Cletus C.: When you decide to shoot me while I'm enjoying a movie

Where do you get this idea that all gun owners have some kind of mentally ill hive mind? It's a really bizarre prejudice that to me seems like you'd notice about yourself. Do you have these kinds of thoughts about other groups of people?

Set your gun down and slowly step away. Our surgeons will have those bees out of your brain in no time.

verbaltoxin:1. There are other means for mass murder.2. They're cheap and legal to make.3. Their availability means an individual like Holmes can still commit mass murder.

I wonder why modern militaries use firearms as personal weapons, then. After all, swords and arrows worked just fine for millenia.

Oh, that's right, I forgot, the gun is the single deadliest hand-held weapon mankind has ever devised. My bad.

And yes, bombs are another alternative for the wannabe mass murderer. But they don't always work.

Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold planted two propane bombs in the Columbine High School cafeteria, but they didn't go off. That was because Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were farking idiots who couldn't make a bomb if their lives depended on it. They were lucky that they didn't blow themselves up while they were constructing them. But even those two clowns were fully capable of pointing a gun and pulling the trigger.

Guns are by far the easist way for maniacs to kill lots of people. Why people even bother trying to argue this obvious truth is beyond me.

/Having said that, gun control will never work in the US. There are too many firearms in circulation already.

Every once in a while in a fark thread there's one of these simple statements of truth.

I'd disagree with it. It's not so much that we're retarded, that's more a subset of the greater issue - we're collectively assholes. Some people know exactly what they're doing, and have the resources to do it, and they go ahead and act a total douche. THE JOKAR knew what he was doing, and did it well. He just happens to be an asshole.

As I say: "Any economic or social theory that does not start with the assumption that people are assholes is fundamentally wrong."